Author: Kristin Stone

In a move that could spare many animals from pain and death in crude 1940s-era experiments, the Registration Committee of the Central Insecticide Board under India’s Ministry of Agriculture has revised its pesticide testing regulations to recognize modern, human cell-based alternatives to rabbit tests for the assessment of eye and skin irritation. This decision comes after more than two years of campaigning by Humane Society International/India and negotiations between HSI/India, members of the pesticide industry and PETA India.

The revised “Guidance Document on Toxicology for Registration of Chemical Pesticides in India” also includes language that directs companies to consider new validated alternative methods to animal testing, and changing some previously ‘unconditional’ test requirements to conditional requirements. Notoriously cruel inhalation studies, in which rats or mice are confined to whole-body restraint tubes and forced to breathe in toxic vapours for up to six hours a day – sometimes for weeks on end or at such extreme levels to determine the chemical concentration that is lethal – are an example of a requirement that has been downgraded to conditional, meaning they may be waived going forward.

HSI/India Managing Director Jayasimha Nuggehalli said: “We welcome the Registration Committee’s move to replace notoriously cruel and obsolete animal pesticide tests. It has been a long journey, and there much is still left to do to bring Indian regulations in line with international best practices for reduction and replacement of animal testing for pesticides. The new regulations put India on the right path and will save countless animals from needless suffering.”

Be a Lab Animal Defender.

In 2016 HSI/India identified a “dirty dozen” pesticide animal tests that could be ended immediately without risk to consumer or environmental safety. The recent action by the CIB-RC addresses two of these test areas, but overlooks other internationally-recognized animal-saving approaches that could spare thousands more animals for every pesticide chemical tested. Examples include:

• Calculation of a pesticide formulation’s toxicity instead of conducting repeat “lethal dose” testing via oral, skin and inhalation routes
• An animal-free test strategy for skin allergy that predicts human reactions with greater accuracy than any of the accepted animal tests 
• An “extended 1-generation” test that reduces animal use by 1,200 rats per test

HSI/India will continue its dialogue with Indian authorities and industry executives until all available animal testing alternatives are fully accepted and implemented in practice.

Media Contact: Vidhi Malla, vmalla@hsi.org, +91 9560103078

Only two months after global controversy erupted over US imports of elephant and lion hunting trophies, a wealthy Texan has applied for a permit to import a trophy from his killing of a critically endangered black rhino from Namibia.

The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International are calling on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deny this and any other import permit applications to hunters who want to kill and import trophies of the world’s last remaining black rhinos.

The Ministry of Environment and Tourism of the Republic of Namibia, jointly with two pro-trophy hunting lobby groups, the Dallas Safari Club Foundation and Conservation Force, quietly auctioned off the killing of the rhino in December 2016 for $275,000. The Texas hunter killed the rhino on February 27, 2017 at the luxury Veronica Game Lodge, operated by ARU Game Lodges, Namibia. ARU is a hunting outfitter which will exhibit it at the largest U.S. trophy hunting convention, hosted by Safari Club International in Las Vegas, in February 2018.

Masha Kalinina, international trade policy specialist at Humane Society International, said: “We call on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to support the conservation of critically endangered black rhinos by keeping them alive, and not permitting trophy hunters to kill them and import gruesome ‘prizes’ into the United States. Allowing trophy hunters to kill black rhinos will take a severe toll on their populations, already under immense pressure from poaching.”

Become a Wildlife Defender.

Fewer than 5,500 black rhinos remain in the wild, and only 1,946 live in Namibia. Four years ago, a Texas millionaire and TV personality, Corey Knowlton, paid $350,000 to kill a black rhino in Namibia. The price tag for this rhino trophy may be as high or higher.

The animals are seriously threatened by poaching, which doubled in Namibia from 2013 to 2015. In 2015, poachers there killed 90 rhinos compared with one to four per year from 2006 to 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has opened a 30-day comment period on this import application, seeking input from the public.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has initiated a 30-day public comment period. HSI and The HSUS urge members of the public to make their voices heard by submitting comments here.

Media contacts: Raúl Arce-Contreras, rcontreras@humanesociety.org, +1 301-721-6440
Thaisi Da Silva, tdasilva@humanesociety.org, 202-578-6767

The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad has reiterated its ban on cockfighting directing the Government of Andhra Pradesh to strictly follow the order it made in 2016. HSI/India has been campaigning to end the practice of cockfighting and has urged the public to report any cockfighting to the nearest police station or at HSI/India’s tip line at 8899117773.

In cockfighting, two roosters are made to fight each other to the death, often fitted with razor-sharp blades on their legs, while people place bets. Sections 11(1) (m) (ii) and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act makes inciting and organizing animal fights an offence.

N G Jayasimha, managing director of HSI/India said, “In 2016, the High Court explicitly laid out norms for the Government of Andhra Pradesh to follow to ensure cockfights are prevented but there has been ample evidence of cockfights taking place and the government turning a blind eye to all of them at crucial times. We urge the AP government to once again to ensure that the orders of the High Court and the law is followed. Cockfighting is not only cruel to animals but also encourages gambling and child labour. A practice that glorifies so many illegal activities should have no place in a civilized society.”

Important points from the High Court order with case no: W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014 And W.P. (PIL) M.P. No.305 of 2016 IN W.P. (PIL) No.177 of 2016:

1.    Government of A.P. shall, at the earliest and in any event not later than 31.01.2017, constitute SPCAs in all Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh strictly in accordance with the 2001 Rules.

2.    The District Collectors of all the Districts, more particularly of West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna and Guntur, shall constitute joint inspection teams, for each Mandal in their respective Districts, consisting of a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, the Tahsildar, and a representative of either the Animal Welfare Board of India or a member of a non-governmental organization espousing the cause of animals or persons involved in the prevention of cruelty to animals. Two police constables, and a photographer, shall assist each of these inspection teams which shall be constituted on or before 07.01.2017. These joint inspection teams shall be provided necessary assistance by the District Administration to tour all villages in their Mandal, and identify playgrounds/cock-pits where such events are proposed to be held.

3.    The District Collector/the Commissioners of Police/Superintendent of Police of the District, on being informed of the places where such playgrounds and cockpits have been formed, shall take immediate action to ensure that such playgrounds are not utilized for conducting cockfights, if need be, by exercising powers under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

4.    The Joint inspection team shall be entitled to seize instruments used or intended to be used for the cock fights, and any money which may have been collected towards betting at such events.

5.    All the District Collectors, the Commissioners of Police and the Superintendent of Police, more particularly from these four Districts, shall ensure effective implementation of the provisions of the 1960 and the 1974 Acts. They shall be held personally responsible for lapses, if any, on their part in ensuring its proper and effective implementation during the ensuing Sankranthi festivals.

6.    The District Collectors and the Superintendents of Police may, if need be, organize village level meetings to inform the general public of the provisions of the 1960 and the 1974 Acts, the need to ensure its effective implementation, and to prevent cruelty to animals i.e., cocks/roosters.

7.    As held by the Supreme Court, in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja: (2014) 7 SCC 547, the District Collectors, the Commissioners of Police and the Superintendent of Police shall be entitled to take disciplinary action against the erring Tahsildars and Police officers for their failure to ensure effective implementation of the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Media Contact: Neelam Naseeb, neelamnaseeb.hsi@gmail.com, 91-9205104695

Thirteen dogs saved from being killed and eaten in South Korea have arrived safely in the United Kingdom to start the New Year getting the love and care they deserve. Animal protection charity Humane Society International, accompanied by TV’s Pete Wicks from The Only Way Is Essex, travelled to South Korea before Christmas for the charity’s 10th dog meat farm closure, saving all 170 dogs from death row.

Pete joined the charity at Heathrow Animal Reception Centre for an emotional reunion with Henry, a golden retriever; Jack, a beagle; and Lucie, George, Tory, Rocky, Bella, Chris, Adam, Mocha, Abbie, Lucy and Leila, all Jindo mixes.

The dogs were confined their whole lives in filthy, barren, metal cages on a dog meat farm in Namyangju, a mere two hour drive from where South Korea will host the 2018 Winter Olympics in just over four weeks’ time. It’s one of an estimated 17,000 dog farms across the country, breeding more than 2.5million dogs a year to be eaten. In addition to their lives of suffering, the methods used to kill dogs are brutal and often protracted, with electrocution or hanging at the local market, slaughterhouse or restaurant the usual fate.

Claire Bass, executive director of HSI/UK, was part of the rescue team in South Korea, where she first met Henry and is now adopting him. She said:

 “It was incredibly upsetting to see so many frightened dogs in such appalling conditions, many of them emaciated, with skin or eye infections and covered in pressure sores. But our dog farm closures are shining a much-needed spotlight on this cruelty and supporting the vibrant campaign by South Koreans themselves to end the trade. Most South Koreans don’t regularly eat dog meat, and in fact the majority of young people have never eaten it, so it’s a dying industry that we have a real opportunity to end. Being able to rescue Henry from his dog meat farm hell is a privilege that spurs me on to campaign for a day when no dog suffers for the dinner table in South Korea.”

HSI has so far permanently shut down 10 dog meat farms and rescued more than 1,200 dogs who were flown to the USA, Canada and the UK for adoption. The closures are done in partnership with dog farmers eager to leave the controversial trade, and in the hope that the South Korean government will adopt and expand this working model to phase out the cruel industry for good.

Pete Wicks said “Nothing could have prepared me for how dreadful a dog meat farm really is. Endless rows of dogs shivering in the bitter cold on freezing metal bars, a look of utter hopelessness in their eyes. Some of them cowered at the back of their cage, clearly traumatised by their ordeal, while others wagged their tails nervously and even offered me a paw. Their resilience and trust despite their harrowing ordeal really moved me. Helping the HSI rescue team close down that hellish place was one of the proudest experiences of my life, and I’m thrilled to finally be reunited with the 13 dogs who will find their forever homes here in the UK. With love and patience, hopefully they can put the nightmare of the dog meat trade behind them.”

Fight the Dog Meat Trade and Other Cruelty.

Whilst Henry is settling in with Claire and family, the other 12 dogs have been transferred to the care of All Dogs Matter rehoming centre and will stay at the centre in north London, getting the care they need before finding families. Ira Moss, All Dogs Matter director, said: “Everyone at All Dogs Matter is really moved to be able to help give these special dogs a new start in life. They’re never known comfort or love before, and so look forward to finding them their forever homes to help them recover from their ordeal.”

To register interest in adopting one of the South Korean rescues, you can apply online.

HSI thanks Animal Couriers for sponsoring the transport of the dogs from Heathrow.

Facts:

• Around 30 million dogs and 10 million cats a year are killed across Asia for eating, with the trade most widespread in China, South Korea, Indonesia, Laos, Viet Nam and Nagaland in northern India. 
• South Korea is the only country known to factory-farm dogs for eating. Elsewhere, dogs are typically snatched from the streets or stolen as pets for the trade.
• In South Korea, dog meat is most often eaten during the hottest days of the summer in July and August, called Boknal, as a peppery soup called bosintang believed to improve stamina and virility. 
• Dog meat farmers who approach HSI for help exiting the industry sign a legal contract with the charity to relinquish the dogs. The charity provides a small start-up grant to transition farmers to an alternative, humane trade such as chilli growing or water delivery.
• The dog meat industry is in legal limbo in South Korea, neither legal nor illegal. Many provisions of the Animal Protection Act are routinely breached, such as the ban on killing animals in a brutal way including hanging by the neck, killing in public areas or in front of other animals of the same species.

For more information on our campaign visit www.hsi.org/dogmeat 

Media contact: Wendy Higgins: whiggins@hsi.org, +44 (0)7989 972 423

On Dec. 31, 2017, all registered ivory carving facilities, ivory wholesalers and ivory retailers in China closed, thus ending the world’s largest domestic ivory market and fulfilling a joint commitment made in 2015 between China’s President Xi Jinping and then U.S. President Barack Obama.

Iris Ho, wildlife program manager of Humane Society International, issued the following statement:

“The closure of China’s ivory market is a historic milestone in the effort to save elephants. When China, the world’s largest ivory market and a country that once designated ivory carving as an intangible cultural tradition, resoundingly rejects the ivory trade, other countries have no excuse for dragging their feet on banning this pernicious trade. That said, China alone cannot solve the poaching and ivory trafficking epidemic that is putting elephant populations in danger. Remaining countries with significant ivory markets, such as the UK, EU and Japan, should take similar actions so that their markets do not provide a cover for illicit ivory and perpetuate demand for ivory. In particular, we are concerned about Japan, whose leaders’ refusal to address its domestic ivory market undermines China’s effort. Mounting irrefutable evidence shows that Japan’s ivory market is fraught with illegal activities and contributes to ivory trafficking from Japan to China. Japanese authorities must take swift action to close Japan’s domestic ivory market.”

Become a Wildlife Defender.

Background:

• In September 2015, during President Xi’s state visit to Washington, DC, he and President Obama announced that the two countries committed to “enact a nearly complete bans on ivory import and export […] and to take significant and timely steps to halt the domestic commercial trade of ivory.” On Dec. 30, 2016, the Chinese government announced that it will phase out commercial processing and sale of ivory and ivory products by the end of 2017. More than 60 carving facilities and retailers closed by the end of March, with the rest closed by Dec. 31, 2017.
• The European Union and the United Kingdom launched public consultations on proposed restrictions on the sale, import and export of ivory, signaling the possible future closure of domestic ivory markets in these jurisdictions. Comments from the public were due on December 8 and December 29 respectively. 
• China’s closure of its domestic ivory market leaves Japan with the highest number of ivory manufacturers, dealers and wholesalers of any country in the world. In the last decade, sellers offered $27 million worth of ivory products on Yahoo! Japan Shopping. Figures released by Japan’s Ministry of Environment show that Chinese authorities stopped more than 100 incidents of attempted ivory smuggling from Japan to China between 2011 and 2016.
• The 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, held in October 2016, recommended the closure of domestic ivory markets that are “contributing to poaching or illegal trade” as a matter of urgency.

Media contact: Raúl Arce-Contreras, rcontreras@humanesociety.org, +1 301-721-6440

London—British consumers are being misled into buying real fur from fox, rabbit, chinchilla and mink, falsely advertised as fake fur, an investigation by Humane Society International UK and Sky News has revealed.

The investigation found trusted online retailers such as Boohoo, Amazon and Not On The High Street all selling items such as bobble hats, keychains, scarves, shoes and coats advertised as faux fur when laboratory tests revealed them to be real animal fur.

Many of these items have deceptively low price points; life is cheap on fur farms, with animals enduring appalling deprivation, and this means that real fur trim often costs the same or even less than faux fur.

Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International UK, said: “The amount of fake faux fur online is truly shocking, with even trusted retailers mis-selling real animal fur as synthetic. It is appalling that British shoppers, who are actively choosing not to buy real fur because of the terrible animal suffering, are being misled into buying the very same fur products they’re trying to avoid. The combination of trusted brands, cheap prices, and items described as “faux” or “100% acrylic”, means many people will be justifiably horrified to discover they’ve inadvertently bought animal fur. Consumers rightly expect brands to sell what they say they’re selling, so urgent action is needed to stop this insidious creep of fur through the back door.”

Animal lover Jayne Webster got in touch with HSI to report concerns about the key chain that she bought from T.K. Maxx after being assured it was faux fur by T K Maxx staff. HSI sent the keychain off for testing and found it to be made of rabbit fur. Jayne said: “As a company who proudly boasts that they have not sold fur or angora products since 2003, I would assume that TK Maxx takes a strong ethical stance on this issue. So when I found out that the fur pom-pom I bought was actually made of rabbit fur I was extremely disappointed and concerned. I am aware of the horrific suffering that animals on fur farms go through and would never want to buy real fur, I don’t know how companies can get away with this.”

Fake faux fur items include:

• T.K. Maxx, fox fur coat
• Boohoo, mink fur earrings
• Boohoo, rabbit fur shoes
• Miss Bardo, fox fur hat
• Amazon, rabbit fur children’s shoes
• Not On The High Street, rabbit fur keychain
• Groupon, rabbit fur keychain
• Etsy, mink fur earrings

Around the world in countries such as the U.S., France, Poland and China, animals on fur farms are subjected to terrible conditions. Beautiful wild animals are kept their entire lives in small, barren cages, physically and mentally deprived, before being killed and skinned for their fur. Wild animals such as coyotes fair no better, caught in agonising traps for hours or even days before being shot.

The vast majority of the British public are against wearing fur. A 2016 YouGov poll shows 9 out of 10 Brits believe that it is unacceptable to buy and sell real fur, averaged across nine species. Although fur farming was outlawed in the UK on moral grounds in 2000, and EU regulations ban fur from domestic cats, dogs or commercial seal hunts, the UK still imports and sells fur from a range of other species such as fox, rabbit, mink, coyote, raccoon dog, and chinchilla.

HSI is campaigning for the British Government to make the United Kingdom a fur-free zone by extending the cat, dog and seal fur bans to include all fur-bearing species. As a member of the EU single market, under rules relating to free movement of goods the UK is not currently at liberty to ban the import of animal fur, which is farmed in several European countries. But Brexit could give the government the freedom to reflect the public’s distaste for all fur and close our borders fully to this cruel and outdated trade.

Bass continued: “The government banned fur farming as unethical in the UK more than ten years ago, but perversely we have since been importing that same cruelty from fur farms overseas. The vast majority of British people believe that animal fur has no place in our high streets and wardrobes, and would support a UK ban. Mandatory, clear labelling of all fur is urgently needed to stop consumers being misled, but ultimately to properly protect both animals and consumers, the government must use the opportunity presented by Brexit to ban all UK fur imports.”

Frequently Asked Questions:

• There is no legal requirement to use the specific word “fur” on items containing real fur. EU regulations do require items defined as “textile products” to carry the confusing wording “contains non-textile parts of animal origin” but as well as not clearly telling consumers it means “real animal fur”, in practice this wording requirement is rarely adhered to at all.
• Products sold online are exempt even from the above confusing wording requirement, and footwear or non-garment accessories such as handbags and keychains are also excluded.
• Under consumer protection legislation, it’s technically illegal to mislead. However, the regulation – with respect to the sale of animal fur – is very poorly enforced, and ‘an honest mistake’ is considered a legitimate defence and so retailers are rarely prosecuted.
• HSI believes that all products containing real animal fur (including clothing, footwear, accessories etc) should be clearly labelled in plain English. Such labelling is already in place in the US and Switzerland, and should include the animal species (both common and scientific name); country of origin (where the animal was bred/trapped and killed); how the animal was reared and killed (trap caught or reared in a wire cage, for example).

Media contact: Harriet Barclay, HBarclay@hsi.org, +44 (0)7794354596

Notes:

• 1. YouGov opinion poll commissioned by HSI UK. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2051 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 9th and 12th September 2016. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).The poll listed nine species, including domestic dog, mink, seal, fox and rabbit, and asked people whether or not they found it acceptable for fur from these animals to be bought and sold in the UK. Results reveal that less than 10% of people feel it is acceptable to be able to buy and sell products containing domestic dog fur (7%), seal fur (8%), and cat fur (9%), respectively, and indeed such imports are banned by law. But critically the poll also shows similar distaste for fur items from other species that can still be legally sold here – only between 8 and 12% of people said that they found it acceptable to buy or sell fur from foxes (12%), mink (12%), chinchilla (9%), raccoon dogs (8%) and coyotes (8%) (the last of which are not farmed, but wild-trapped). Rabbit fur had the highest approval rating, but is still only acceptable to one in five people despite being one of the most commonly found fur trim items on the high-street.
• 2. Items in this investigation were purchased online between 01.07.17 and 14.09.17 and tested by fibre analysis expert Dr Phil Greaves from Microtex Laboratory, a lab used by Trading Standards for fur analysis.

LONDON—Michael Kors Holdings Limited (NYSE: KORS)—a global fashion luxury group —will end its use of fur, with production phased out by the end of 2018. The policy will apply companywide, including for Michael Kors’ Jimmy Choo brand. With this announcement, Michael Kors and Jimmy Choo have joined the international Fur Free Retailer Program.

Humane Society International applauds the effort, which is the latest in a series of announcements by major fashion brands to move away from using animal fur and substitute other products to create stylish and functional clothing.

Become a Wildlife Defender.

Designer Michael Kors said: “Due to technological advances in fabrications, we now have the ability to create a luxe aesthetic using non-animal fur. We will showcase these new techniques in our upcoming runway show in February.”

Humane Society International’s President Kitty Block said: “Killing animals for fur is cruel and outdated, and so it’s hugely exciting to see forward-looking fashion designers such as Michael Kors take fur out of their collections. It’s clear that consumer demand for ethical fashion includes a strong desire for an end to fur, and so we are delighted to welcome Michael Kors as a fur-free leader in luxury fashion alongside the likes of Gucci, Armani, Yoox Net-a-Porter, Stella McCartney, Ralph Lauren and Hugo Boss.”

PJ Smith, senior manager of fashion policy for The Humane Society of the United States, who worked with the company on its fur-free policy, said: “Today’s consumers want fashionable, luxurious clothing and accessories that also align with their social values and Michael Kors’ fur-free move makes it a leader in that regard.”

ENDS

Media Contact: Harriet Barclay hbarclay@hsi.org

ヒューメイン・ソサイエティー・インターナショナル(HSI)は、ブラジル及びアメリカ大陸初の、化粧品とその原料に対する動物実験の実施と新たに動物実験された化粧品の販売双方を禁止する法案を可決したリオデジャネイロ州議会の決断を歓迎した。法案には、違反者に対する厳しい罰金や営業許可証の停止が盛り込まれている。

Paulo Ramos 議員により執筆された法案2714-A/2014は、今年6月に議会で可決されていたが、Luiz Fernando Pezão 州知事が拒否権を行使していた。州知事の拒否権は、本日議会により満場一致で覆された。法案は、HSI、Fórum Nacional de Proteção e Defesa Animal、リオデジャネイロ弁護士協会、リオデジャネイロ治安判事協会等を含む多くの組織や、その他多くの科学者や学術関係者により支持されていた。また、拒否権行使に反対する署名が50,000名以上の市民から集まっていた。

審議においては、Carlos Osório議員が、州知事の拒否権行使を「狂気」、化粧品の動物実験を「野蛮な行為」と酷評した。法案の共著者のGilberto Palmaresは、科学技術の進歩が、化粧品業界において動物を用いた試験が不必要である点に達したことを強調した。

#BeCrueltyFreeブラジルのキャンペーンマネージャーのHelder Constantinoは、次のように述べている。「この法令は大きな進歩を意味します。ブラジルでは5つの州がすでに化粧品の動物実験を禁止していますが、販売禁止が盛り込まれた法令はこれが初めてです。またしても、州議会が、消費者の意見に耳を傾けより効率よくかつエシカルな動物を用いない方法を開発するための第一歩を踏み出す意欲を示した形になりました。 国の議会もこれを模範とすべきで、また、アメリカ大陸を通して、政策立案者がこの達成事項により刺激を受けてくれることを確信しております。」

リオデジャネイロ弁護士協会のReynaldo Vellosoは、次のように述べている。「今日の勝利は、ブラジル全土に影響を及ぼすものと思っています。特に、化粧品の動物実験を禁止すべく議論が行われている国の議会の上院に影響を及ぼすと考えています。」

これで、ブラジルでは6つの州が化粧品とその原料に対する動物実験の実施を禁止したことになる。これらの州は、パラナ州、サンパウロ州、リオデジャネイロ州、マットグロッソ・ド・スル州、パラー州及びアマゾナス州であり、ブラジルにある約6割の化粧品会社を網羅する。

世界的に、化粧品の動物実験は、欧州連合全域、イスラエル、インド、ノルウェー、スイス、台湾、ニュージーランド及びグアテマラを含む、37か国で禁止されている。アメリカ、カナダ、オーストラリア、チリ、南アフリカ等の国でも同様の法案が検討されている。

リオデジャネイロの法案2714/2014は、公務日記に出版され次第施行される。

問い合わせ: Raúl Arce-Contreras, rcontreras@humanesociety.org, +1 301-721-6440

Humane Society International is applauding the Rio de Janeiro State Assembly for adopting the first law in Brazil and the Americas banning both the testing of cosmetics products and ingredients on animals as well as the sales of cosmetics newly tested on animals. The bill includes heavy fines and a suspension of a license to operate for those breaching the law.

Bill 2714-A/2014, authored by Representative Paulo Ramos had been adopted by the Assembly last June, but vetoed by Governor Luiz Fernando Pezão. The Governor’s veto was unanimously overturned today by the Assembly. Numerous organizations supported the bill including Humane Society International, the Fórum Nacional de Proteção e Defesa Animal, the Rio de Janeiro Bar Association, the Rio de Janeiro Magistrates Association and many scientists and academics. A petition against the veto was signed by more than 50,000 citizens.

During the debate, Representative Carlos Osório lambasted the Governor’s veto as “insanity” and cosmetic tests on animals as “barbaric.” Gilberto Palmares, co-author of the bill, emphasized that technological progress has reached a point where tests on animals in the cosmetic sector are unnecessary.

Helder Constantino, #BeCrueltyFree Brazil campaign manager for HSI, said: “This law is a new landmark. Although five states have already banned cosmetic tests on animals in the country, this is the first one to also include a sales ban. Once again state legislatures have shown their willingness to listen to consumers and take a step towards the development of more efficient and ethical animal-free methods. This is an example for the National Congress to follow, but there is no doubt this achievement will also inspire lawmakers throughout the Americas and the world.”

Become a Lab Animal Defender.

Reynaldo Velloso, from the Rio de Janeiro Bar Association stated: “I see today’s victory as one that will impact all over Brazil, above all in the Federal Senate where a struggle to ban all cosmetic tests on animals is also taking place.”

Six Brazilian states have now banned the tests of cosmetic products and ingredients on animals: Paraná, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará and Amazonas, representing about 60 percent of all cosmetics companies established in Brazil.

Globally, cosmetic tests on animals have been banned in 37 countries, including the whole of the European Union, Israel, India, Norway, Switzerland, Taiwan, New Zealand and Guatemala. Similar legislation is being debated in the United States, Canada, Australia, Chile, South Africa and elsewhere.

Rio de Janeiro’s Bill 2714/2014 will be implemented into law as soon as it is published in the official diary.

Media contact: Raúl Arce-Contreras, rcontreras@humanesociety.org, +1 301-721-6440